Diaphragms

Contents [hide]

1. Introduction to Diaphragms
2. A History of Diaphragms
1. Evolution of Lateral Load Analysis
2. Diaphragm Modeling Today
3. Types of Diaphragms
1. Flexible Diaphragms
2. Rigid Diaphragms
3. Semi rigid Diaphragms
4. Characteristics and Modeling of Flexible Diaphragms
5. Classifying Rigid Diaphragms
1. Characteristics of Rigid Diaphragms
6. Special Considerations for Rigid Diaphragms
1. Axial Force Consideration
7.
1.
2.
3.
8. Characteristics and Modeling of Semi rigid Diaphragms
1. Defining Analytical Properties of Slabs and Decks
 2.
3. Defining Loads on a Diaphragm
9. Impact of Mesh size in Semirigid Diaphragm Analysis
1. Coarse Mesh vs Fine Mesh Sizes
10. Selected Topics

Interested in RAM Structural System? Contact Bentley now

Introduction to Diaphragms
As diaphragm is considered a structural element that can transmit lateral loads to the
vertical resisting elements of a structure, i.e. columns and shear walls. The term
diaphragm is usually applied to roofs and floors. However, a shear wall is a vertical,
cantilevered diaphragm. These construction systems can be used when designing a
building for seismic or wind lateral loads.

The diaphragm forces are transferred to the vertical resisting elements primarily through
in-plane shear stress. The most common lateral loads to be resisted are those resulting
from earthquake and/or wind actions. Secondarily, other lateral loads, i.e. earth or
hydrostatic pressure, can be also resisted by diaphragm actions.

Furthermore, the diaphragm of a structure supports gravity loads, especially in bridges.

Diaphragms are usually constructed of concrete slab referring to concrete structures or
metal or composite metal deck in steel structures.

The three primary types of diaphragm are flexible, rigid and semirigid. Flexible
diaphragms resist lateral forces depending on the tributary area, irrespective of the
flexibility of the members that they are transferring force to. On the other hand, rigid
diaphragms transfer load to frames or shear walls depending on their flexibility and their
location in the structure. The flexibility of a diaphragm affects the distribution of lateral
forces to the vertical components of the lateral force resisting elements in a structure.
The main difference of rigid diaphragms and semirigid diaphragms is that a rigid
diaphragm has infinite in-plane stiffness properties, and therefore it neither exhibits
membrane deformation nor report the associated forces, whereas a semi-rigid
diaphragm simulates actual in-plane stiffness properties and behavior.

What is of interest of a (structural) civil engineer is mainly the modeling and the
classification of the diaphragms. Diaphragms are a part of an analytical model in most
cases and thus the knowledge of the theory is significant for an ordinary user of a
software. The main function of diaphragms is to provide stability to the overall structure
when the structure is subjected to lateral loads and a careful handling of the model is
appropriate.
It summarizes the history and the types of diaphragms, the characteristics and modeling
of flexible diaphragms, the classification and special considerations for rigid
diaphragms, the characteristics and modeling of semirigid diaphragms and the impact of
mesh size in semirigid diaphragm analysis.

A History of Diaphragms
Over the last several years we have seen a steady evolution in how diaphragms are
considered in analysis programs.

Evolution of Lateral Load Analysis

Prior to the mid-1980s, before structural analysis software was readily available to
engineers, most engineer’s analyzed buildings for lateral loads using simplified manual
methods, considering the frames as individual 2D frames. Loads were considered as
nodal loads, which had to be calculated by hand (the codes were much simpler back
then) and the engineer had to decide how to distribute the loads to each frame. This
was generally based either on tributary areas or on relative stiffness of the frames. It is
interesting to note that implicit in the former approach was the assumption of a flexible
diaphragm and implicit in the methodologies commonly used in the latter approach was
the assumption of a rigid diaphragm.

Credits: Bentley Systems

With the advent of personal computers, rudimentary analysis programs became
generally available, but those programs merely mimicked what engineers were
previously doing manually: engineers analyzed most buildings for lateral loads by simply
modeling separately each individual 2D frame and applying the nodal loads that the
engineer manual calculated. There were no capabilities to analyze the 3D frames nor to
automatically generate wind or seismic loads in those programs.

By the late 1990s, however, the technology evolved. Three-dimensional models could
now be created and analyzed within a software program, and lateral loads could now be
automatically generated and distributed to the lateral frames in the model. Nodal loads
could still be manually calculated and meticulously applied if desired, but the software
could also automate the process of applying the wind and seismic story forces and
distributing those loads to the various frames. Because of severe limitations on
computer memory and speed, simplifying assumptions and methodologies were
necessary. The assumption that the diaphragm is infinitely rigid was widely
implemented because it dramatically reduced the size of the analytical model while
providing a mechanism for distributing the wind and seismic loads to the frames. At the
time it was impractical or impossible to actually model the diaphragm properties and
include the diaphragm as part of the analytical model.

Diaphragm Modeling Today

Today’s computers are exponentially faster and have much more capacity for larger and
more complicated analytical models. This includes the ability to explicitly model the
diaphragms and include them in the analysis. But it is still common today for engineers
to consider diaphragms to be either flexible (i.e., no significant stiffness) or to be rigid,
and to analyze them that way without any modeling of the diaphragms.

Why is it important to know this history? First, it is important to understand how and why
commonly accepted practices and method originated. It helps justify using a particular
approach, or demands that something different be done. While engineers now rely
heavily on automated technology, it is sometimes necessary to do hand calculations to
verify results; knowledge of this history can help with that manual process.

Second, it helps answer confusion about the methods used and the results obtained,
and clarifies best practices and methods for particular conditions. This understanding
aids in determining the ramifications of employing any particular diaphragm modeling
methodology, and guides the engineer in mitigating the shortcomings inherent with
each.

Types of Diaphragms

Flexible Diaphragms

When the lateral stiffness of the frames is very large compared to the in-plane stiffness
of the diaphragm, the diaphragm has very little influence on the distribution of lateral
forces. Such a diaphragm is classified as Flexible. It lacks the capacity to redistribute
forces between frames. In the extreme, horizontal braces are sometimes required to
provide the load paths to the frames. Often with the help of drags and chords it is
capable of distributing the lateral loads to the frames simply based on tributary exposure
(for wind) or tributary area (for seismic). This is common for metal roof decks. These
diaphragms are not represented in the analytical model in any way; the lateral model
consists only of the frame members. There is no mechanism analytically to transfer the
lateral forces to the frames, and so the loads must be explicitly assigned as nodal loads
by the engineer. This modeling is closest to the way that analysis was done before 3D
programs became available.
Credits: Bentley Systems
Rigid Diaphragms

In contrast to the Flexible diaphragm, some diaphragms are very stiff compared to the
stiffness of the frames; the in-plane deformation of the diaphragm is very small
compared to the horizontal deflections of the frames. Due to the lack of capacity and
capabilities in early computers it became common to simplify the analytical model by
assuming that the diaphragm is infinitely rigid. This is what is known as the Rigid
diaphragm. The size of the computational model is reduced drastically when this
assumption is made (which was necessary when computers had much less processing
power). The Rigid diaphragm can rotate and translate, but it cannot deform. In such a
model, the lateral forces will be distributed (and redistributed at subsequent levels)
based upon the relative stiffnesses of all the members resisting lateral loads. Because
concrete floors and floors of concrete fill on metal deck are generally very stiff, the Rigid
diaphragm is often a suitable representation. It provides a convenient analytical tool for
tying the frames together and distributing the story forces to the various frames. It is
interesting to note that hand methods that were used, before computers were readily
available, to attempt to distribute the loads to the frames based on the relative
stiffnesses of the frames were based on an implicit assumption that the diaphragms
were Rigid.

Semigrid Diaphragms

Many diaphragms don’t qualify as either Flexible or Rigid. The in-plane deformations of
the diaphragm have significant influence on the distribution of lateral forces to the
frames. Such diaphragms are referred to as Semirigid. To adequately capture these
effects the diaphragm must be modeled and included explicitly in the analysis. This
requires that the diaphragm stiffness properties be specified and the diaphragm meshed
into shell or plate elements. This dramatically increases the size of the analytical model
and the time that it takes to analyze. Historically this was not feasible due to the limited
memory and capacity of computers, but that is no longer the case. The Rigid diaphragm
assumption is still useful and can be adequately valid in many cases, but an over-
reliance on the use of the Rigid diaphragm assumption has led to more and more
stringent requirements in Building Codes specifying when the diaphragms must be
modeled as Semirigid.

Credits: Bentley Systems

Characteristics and Modeling of Flexible
Diaphragms
ASCE 7-16 Section 12.3.1.1 describes configurations in which the diaphragm may be
considered Flexible, generally including untopped steel decking or wood structural
panels in structures where the lateral force resisting system is braced frames or shear
walls. Refer to that section for other configurations as well. Note that it doesn’t say that
such diaphragms must be considered Flexible, it only says that it is permitted to
consider such diaphragms as Flexible. Also note that this is in the chapter on seismic
design requirements; in Chapter 26 for wind loads, Section 26.2 gives a much simpler
definition for “Diaphragm” that permits more configurations to be considered Rigid. For
simplicity, however, I recommend that when designing for both seismic and wind loads,
the same diaphragm definition and modeling be used for both, and that will generally be
based on the more stringent diaphragm definition given for seismic design.

When the structural conditions do not fall within the category described in ASCE 7-16
Section 12.3.1.1, it is still permitted to consider the diaphragm as Flexible if the
deflection of the diaphragm is greater than two times the drift of the adjacent frames as
described in Section 12.3.1.3. A difficulty with this provision, however, is that the
deflection of the diaphragm must be determined, either analytically or manually.

Credits: Bentley Systems

As can be seen, ASCE 7 has very explicit definitions of diaphragm types. In jurisdictions
where other Codes are used, the requirements of those codes related to diaphragms
should be investigated. Some codes merely have a general but ambiguous statement to
the effect that the analysis shall consider “the influences that may reasonably be
expected”, one of many of which is the diaphragms. In the Eurocodes I have only found
references to diaphragms in Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Most of those references are descriptions of Rigid diaphragms, with no
explicit reference to Flexible diaphragms. In lieu of explicit definitions in those codes,
the definitions given in ASCE 7 are reasonable.
 Credits: Bentley Systems
It is common that the Roof diaphragm is classified as Flexible and the floor diaphragms
are classified as Rigid or Semirigid, and it is acceptable to analyze them as such. In
analysis software, when considering a diaphragm as Flexible, the beams, columns,
braces and walls are modeled but no element is modeled to represent the diaphragm.
This simplifies the modeling of the structure but complicates the application of the loads.
For Rigid and Semirigid, the diaphragm provides the analytical method for distributing
the lateral forces to the frames, but since there is nothing in the model that represents
the Flexible diaphragm, determination of the distribution of the lateral forces to the
frames must be done manually. For seismic forces this is often based on a tributary
area basis and for wind forces on a tributary exposure basis. Essentially, the loads will
take the shortest path through the diaphragm to the nearest frame members.

It is crucial that the capacity of the decking and framing be investigated to verify that it is
capable of transferring those forces, otherwise serious damage and even collapse may
occur. If necessary, members and connections should be designed as drags to convey
the lateral forces through the decking to the frames.

Because there are no diaphragm elements in the model to provide lateral bracing to the
frame members, care must be taken to avoid creating conditions that are analytically
unstable. This can occur, for example, if all of the columns in a frame are pinned in the
weak axis; there is nothing to resist those columns from “tipping over” sideways.

An off-topic but important consideration is the ability or lack thereof of the deck to brace
the top flange of the beam. If it is so flexible that it is considered a Flexible diaphragm, it
may lack the stiffness required to be considered a brace of the top compression flange,
in which case the beam should be designed considering the full unbraced length.

Classifying Rigid Diaphragms

Characteristics of Rigid Diaphragms

Some diaphragms, such as concrete slabs, are very stiff compared to the stiffness of
the frames; the in-plane deformation of the diaphragm is negligible compared to the
horizontal deflections of the frames. Such diaphragms can be classified as Rigid.
Analytically, Rigid diaphragms are considered to be infinitely rigid. The Rigid diaphragm
can rotate and translate, but it cannot deform. In such a model, the lateral forces will be
distributed (and redistributed at subsequent levels) based upon the relative stiffnesses
and location of all the members resisting lateral loads. It provides a convenient
analytical tool for tying the frames together and distributing the story forces to the
various frames.

Credits: Bentley Systems

ASCE 7-16 Section 12.2.1.2 gives a very narrow definition of when a diaphragm can be
considered Rigid:

Diaphragms of concrete slabs or concrete-filled metal deck with span-to-depth ratios of

3 or less in structures that have no horizontal irregularities are permitted to be idealized
as rigid.

Concrete slabs and composite slabs are recognized as being very stiff. The span-to-
depth ratio does not refer to that of the slab itself, but rather the ratio of the distance
between frames (“span”) to the width of the diaphragm (“depth”). If the diaphragm is
long and narrow, it can’t be considered a Rigid diaphragm.
 Bentley Systems
Horizontal Irregularities are defined in Table 12.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. I could fill a whole
article just discussing these (maybe I will).

The IBC gives a more liberal definition of Rigid diaphragm. In Section 1604.4 of IBC
2018 it states:

A diaphragm is rigid for the purpose of distribution of story shear and torsional moment when the
lateral deformation of the diaphragm is less than or equal to two times the average story drift.
Note that this is similar but opposite of the ASCE 7 definition of Flexible. And again, it
requires that the deflection of the diaphragm be determined, either analytically or
manually, in order to determine whether or not the diaphragm can be modeled as Rigid.

The Eurocode allows a diaphragm to be modeled as Rigid if the corresponding

Semirigid model doesn’t produce horizontal displacements that exceed the Rigid
diaphragm’s model by more than 10%. The Note to Clause 4.3.1(4) of EN 1998-
1:2004+A1:2013 states:

NOTE The diaphragm is taken as being rigid, if, when it is modelled with its actual in-plane flexibility, its
horizontal displacements nowhere exceed those resulting from the rigid diaphragm assumption by
more than 10% of the corresponding absolute horizontal displacements in the seismic design
situation.
In some analytical programs, the Rigid diaphragm is modeled by the user defining a
master node and then constraining to that node all of the other nodes at that level. In
the RAM Structural System and some other programs the diaphragm is simply specified
by the user as Rigid and then during the analysis process when the stiffness matrix is
formed, none of the degrees of freedom associated with the diaphragm are included.
This drastically reduces the size of the matrix, able to be analyzed significantly faster
and with far fewer computing resources. This is one reason the assumption has been so
popular since the early days of computing.
Special Considerations for Rigid
Diaphragms
In this chapter the discussion is continued for Rigid diaphragms, highlighting some
issues of concern that need to be understood and considered.

Axial Force Consideration

Consider a beam in a moment frame or braced frame. Because analytically the Rigid
diaphragm is modeled as infinitely rigid, any two points on the diaphragm can translate
and rotate, but the distance between them remains fixed. If both ends of a frame beam
are attached to the Rigid diaphragm, the distance between them remains fixed; that is,
there is no shortening or elongation of the beam – there is no axial strain in the beam.
Since stress is a function of strain (stress = E times strain), if there is no strain there is
no stress – which means no axial force. Of course this is wrong, in reality there will be
axial force in the beams, but because of the Rigid diaphragm the analysis indicates zero
axial force. This concept is important to understand because automated designs of
these members won’t include an axial load component. This may not be significant for a
moment frame beam that generally is only distributing the lateral forces to the columns;
in compression the concrete floor slab may take a significant portion of that axial force,
and in tension the beam may have sufficient additional capacity for the relatively small
axial force. However, this can be a significant error for braced frame beams, especially
for brace configurations in which the beam is a significant part of the load path in
distributing the cumulative lateral force from the braces above to the braces below;
these beams carry significant axial load but the analysis does not indicate that. This
shortcoming of the Rigid diaphragm assumption can be rectified by selectively
disconnecting some nodes from the diaphragm. For example, at each level consider
disconnecting all but one of the nodes in each frame. Take care not to disconnect too
many nodes, otherwise the forces will not get from the diaphragm to the frames. For
chevron braces the node where the brace connects to the midspan of the beam should
be disconnected from the diaphragm; the RAM Structural System automatically does
this.
Credits: Bentley Systems
This figure shows the nodes, with the yellow nodes indicating those that are attached to
the diaphragm and the white nodes indicating those that have been detached from the
diaphragm. When analyzed, the forces in the diaphragms will be transferred into the
frames at the yellow nodes and distributed to the adjacent nodes via axial forces in the
beams, as expected:

Note that this approach will likely be conservative because it may overstate the axial
load in the beams, since in reality the diaphragm forces are transferred into the frame at
all of these node points, not just one and then distributed through the beams.

Obviously, nodes that are outside of the floor slab should not be connected to the Rigid
diaphragm. The RAM Structural System provides tools that allow slab edges and
openings to be quickly and easily modeled, and the determination of whether or not a
member’s nodes are within that diaphragm – and hence attached to the Rigid
diaphragm – is fully automated. With this and any other programs with similar
capabilities it is important to recognize the potential that nodes intended to be (or should
be) outside of the Rigid diaphragm are included in the Rigid diaphragm, and are not
disconnected as they should be. Consider two different ways of modeling the slab
shown in the following figure:

Credits: Bentley
Systems
In the figure on the left, the slab edge is assigned to the perimeter framing, with an
opening assigned in the interior. In the figure on the right, the slab edge cuts into the
interior of the framing, leaving some framing exposed. The figure on the right is most
likely the way it will actually be constructed. In the figure on the right the column at A-1
will be correctly disconnected from the diaphragm; lateral forces in the diaphragm can
only be distributed to that column through axial force in the beam, not directly from the
diaphragm to the column. However, in the figure on the left the column at A-1 is within
the area bounded by the diaphragm edge, and so would automatically be connected to
the Rigid diaphragm. In the analysis that column would be perceived to be capable of
receiving lateral forces directly from the diaphragm. Remember, in a model where the
diaphragm is considered to be infinitely rigid, openings in the diaphragm have no impact
on the analysis results. This could have a large impact on the axial force reported by the
analysis, and would certainly impact the flow of forces in the braces in braced frames.
Of course, this problem could be dealt with by selectively disconnecting the node from
the diaphragm, as was discussed above.

Finally, it is important to recognize that when a diaphragm has been specified as Rigid,
the slab openings and even the geometry of the diaphragm itself has no influence on
the analysis results. Consider this model, for example:
 Credits: Bentley Systems
You would expect the opening and the narrow diaphragm to have a significant impact
on the behavior of this structure. However, if this diaphragm has been specified as Rigid
the opening and narrow width are ignored; the diaphragm doesn’t deform, the
distribution of the horizontal diaphragm forces is based solely on the relative stiffnesses
of the frames and their location. This could result in significant error in the distribution of
lateral forces to the various frames, resulting in some frames being underdesigned and
incapable of resisting the forces that they are likely to receive. This is the very reason
why the building codes restrict the use of the Rigid diaphragm assumption; it is
inappropriate for structures such as these.

Many diaphragms require more than simply being considered completely flexible or
infinitely rigid. Often the actual stiffness of the diaphragm itself plays a key role in the
distribution of the lateral forces to the various frames.

Classifying Semirigid Diaphragms

Classifying Flexible Diaphragms

Unless a diaphragm can be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance with 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, or
12.3.1.3, the structural analysis shall explicitly include consideration of the stiffness of the diaphragm
(i.e., semi-rigid modeling assumption).
ASCE 7-16 Section 12.3.1.1 permits a diaphragm to be considered Flexible when the
diaphragm consists of untopped steel decking or wood structural panels in structures
where the lateral force resisting system is steel or composite steel braced frames, or
concrete, masonry, steel or composite steel shear wall. These are explicitly identified
because they are very stiff relative to an untopped steel deck or wood panel floor
system. Diaphragms in one- and two-family dwellings, and
shttps://blog.virtuosity.com/special-considerations-for-rigid-diaphragmstructures of light-
frame construction – with some restrictions – are also permitted to be considered
Flexible.
Section 12.3.1.3 further permits any diaphragm to be considered Flexible if the
deflection of the diaphragm is greater than two times the drift of the adjacent frames.

Classifying Rigid Diaphragms

Conversely, in Section 12.3.1.2 the only diaphragm condition that is permitted to be

considered Rigid is diaphragms of concrete slabs or concrete-filled metal deck with
diaphragm span-to-depth ratios of 3 or less in structures that have no horizontal
irregularities.

All other diaphragms, according to Section 12.3.1, are required to be considered as

Semirigid. This represents a significant portion of structures.

It is interesting to note that IBC 2018 categorizes diaphragms differently. Because IBC
2018 references ASCE 7-16 with no changes to the definition of Flexible diaphragm, the
requirement of Section 12.3.1.3 of ASCE 7-16 applies, in which a diaphragm can be
considered to be Flexible if the lateral deflection of the diaphragm is greater than two
times the drift of the adjacent frames. But then in Section 1604.4 of IBC 2018 the
definition of Rigid diaphragm is modified from that found in ASCE 7:

A diaphragm is rigid … when the lateral deformation of the diaphragm is less than or equal to two
times the average story drift.
Characteristics of Semirigid Diaphragm

Hence, per the IBC, all diaphragms can be considered as either Flexible or Rigid.
Simply put, categorize the diaphragm by comparing diaphragm deflection to frame
deflections: if that ratio is more than two, the diaphragm can be analyzed as flexible; if
that ratio is less than or equal to two, the diaphragm can be analyzed as rigid. I don’t
recommend this, however; I believe that the ASCE 7 definition is generally more
appropriate. It may also be more practical to analyze the diaphragms as semirigid since
such an analysis would be required anyway to perform the deflection calculations
necessary to classify the diaphragms as one or the other. It is permissible in any case to
model and analyze the diaphragm as semirigid.

As I indicated above, Section 12.3.1.2 of ASCE 7 does not allow diaphragms of

structures with horizontal irregularities to be analyzed as Rigid. This is due to the fact
that diaphragms in such structures may play a larger role in the behavior of the structure
and in the distribution of the forces to the lateral force resisting system. The diaphragms
may play a larger role in mitigating the potential damage to the structure due to the
irregularities. In such cases it is important to know the forces in and displacements of
the diaphragm so that it can be properly designed. Furthermore, structural irregularities
are often localized conditions, so it is important that the local impacts of the diaphragm
flexibility are considered in the analysis. For example, unless there is a horizontal floor
truss, when there is a Horizontal Offset Irregularity the diaphragm is the mechanism for
distributing the lateral forces out of the frame above over to the frame below. A torsional
irregularity is evidence of a poor distribution of frames and frame stiffness, or of a highly
uneven distribution of diaphragm masses; this is likely to place more demand on the
diaphragm, and requires a more accurate consideration of how the diaphragm is
interacting with the frames. Similarly, frames in nonparallel systems have a much higher
degree of interaction than orthogonal frames, and are tied together to the degree that
the diaphragm is capable.

In a building with multiple wings the floor may consist of a very stiff concrete slab;
despite that, a rigid diaphragm analysis would probably not be appropriate. In a rigid
diaphragm analysis, the far ends of the wings would be constrained to translate and
rotate together. A semirigid diaphragm analysis would more correctly allow those wings
to displace independently of each other, tied together only by the stiffness of the
diaphragm where the wings meet at the core.

Credits: Bentley Systems

A diaphragm with large openings would obviously not behave the same as a solid
diaphragm.

And a long, narrow diaphragm could be rigid in one direction but not in the other.

Although historically the influence of diaphragms was given lesser consideration, and
simplified approximated methods were allowed due to the need to use more simple
hand and analytical techniques, increasingly the structures designed and built today
need more robust analysis. Incorporation of semirigid diaphragms in the analysis is part
of that.

Characteristics and Modeling of Semirigid

Diaphragms
Defining Analytical Properties of Slabs and Decks

Creation, analysis, and review of a model with Semirigid diaphragms requires

considerably more effort by the engineer and more computing resources in the
computer. If done properly it also gives the most realistic and correct design results. The
first step is to define the analytical properties of the slab or deck:

For a concrete slab it is common to use the slab thickness and the concrete properties
(e.g., Ec) to define the diaphragm stiffness; it may be appropriate to apply a cracked
factor to Ec.

For concrete fill on metal deck it is common to ignore the contribution of the metal deck,
and only use the concrete properties to define the diaphragm stiffness. Although some
engineers consider the diaphragm to be only the depth of the concrete above the ribs, it
would be appropriate to consider all of the concrete, including that in the ribs, since the
concrete in the ribs contributes to the shear stiffness of the diaphragm in both
directions; for most open-profile/trapezoidal decks this is most easily done by specifying
a diaphragm thickness equal to the depth of fill plus one-half of the rib depth. For
reentrant profile decks an equivalent depth can be calculated and used. Although
unusual, some engineers apply a cracked factor to these diaphragms as well (in
defense of the practice of ignoring a cracked factor for these decks I would suggest that
the metal deck, acting compositely with the concrete, adds considerable stiffness, which
we are ignoring, to make up for ignoring the cracked factor).

The stiffness of other types of decks is more difficult to define. For example, the
stiffness of metal roof deck is dependent on the gauge of the deck, the attachment of
the deck to the beams and to adjacent deck sheets, the beam spacing, and the
susceptibility of the corrugated ribs to warping, among others. The Steel Deck Institute
manual provides some guidance. Some engineers insist that different stiffness values
should be used parallel to the span versus perpendicular to the span of the ribs.
However, Section 3.1 of the Steel Deck Institute’s Diaphragm Design Manual 3rd Ed.
shows the calculation of the stiffness, G’, without regard to the direction of the deck
span, noting that “the average shear … is equal either along the panel direction or
across the panels.” So, keep it simple.

The stiffness of plywood diaphragms is similarly difficult to define.

Defining Extents of the Diaphragm

The next step is to define the extents of the diaphragm. This is generally the extents of
the slab edge around the perimeter of the structure. All significant openings in the slab
must also be modeled; if relatively large, these can significantly reduce the stiffness of
the diaphragm. The connectivity of the frame columns, beams, and walls to the
diaphragm must then be specified; these members must share a common node with the
diaphragm. In the RAM Structural System this is done automatically; all frame members
within the slab edge boundaries are automatically connected to the diaphragm.

With the diaphragm stiffness properties defined and the diaphragm boundaries
identified, the next step is to mesh the diaphragm into discrete plate or shell elements.
Some programs, such as the RAM Structural System, automatically create the
diaphragm mesh as seen here:

Credits: Bentley Systems

With the addition of all of these mesh elements the analysis will take considerably
longer than for the model with rigid diaphragms. Furthermore, the coarseness of the
mesh (the size of the plate elements) is a consideration in both the accuracy of the
results and the time required for the analysis, with a generally small impact on the
former and a large impact on the latter.

Defining Loads on a Diaphragm

The final step is to define the loads on the diaphragm. Because the semirigid diaphragm
is less stiff than a rigid diaphragm, the analysis is likely to indicate a longer fundamental
building period for the model with the semirigid diaphragm than the rigid diaphragm; the
longer period may result in a smaller base shear for seismic loads. This is appropriate.
The rigid diaphragm analysis may give shorter building periods and, hence, larger base
shears, which are conservative. In most cases, however, the difference is expected to
be minor.

Diaphragm displacements and story drifts given by the semirigid diaphragm analysis will
differ somewhat from a rigid diaphragm analysis due to the locally greater (or smaller)
deflections that result from not being constrained by the rigid diaphragm assumption. In
regions of the diaphragm not immediately adjacent to the lateral frame members, these
differences may be particularly greater; the validity of those values reported by the
semirigid analysis should be questioned because although the properties of the slab or
deck are more accurately defined, the diaphragm displacements at locations away from
the lateral frames may be exaggerated without consideration of the constraining effects
of the gravity framing, which normally isn’t included in the lateral analysis for simplicity.

It is difficult to perform independent verification calculations other than some simplified

approximations. Furthermore, the output is more complicated and voluminous. For
example, instead of merely reporting the displacement and rotation of the diaphragm,
the output includes the displacements of all of the mesh nodes. This can be less
burdensome if the software has the appropriate visualization and reporting tools. For
example, RAM Structural System has a command that reports the deflection, drift, and
drift ratio for any explicit location on the diaphragm selected by the user; the user needs
to merely select the location, rather than digging through line after line of mesh node
deflection values.

There is often some apprehension over the possibility of improperly meshing the
diaphragm or assigning incorrect stiffness properties.

Impact of Mesh size in Semi rigid

Diaphragm Analysis

Coarse Mesh vs Fine Mesh Sizes

The question arises on the appropriate mesh size to use. What is the impact on the
results if a coarse mesh is used versus a fine mesh?

The structure shown here was analyzed in Bentley Systems’ RAM Structural System.
This example structure was selected because of the asymmetry of the frames and the
narrow diaphragms through the center of the floor plan.

Credits: Bentley Systems

The structure was analyzed several times with semi rigid diaphragms, using a range of
mesh sizes from 1 ft to 15 ft. The figure below shows a comparison of the 1-foot mesh
versus the 15-foot mesh. For comparison, the model was also analyzed with the
diaphragms specified as Rigid.

Credits: Bentley Systems

For each analysis the story shear at each level in each frame was tabulated. The table
below shows the story shears (kips) at each story of each of the three transverse
frames, for each mesh size.
Credits: Bentley Systems
Using the 1-foot mesh as a baseline, the values shown in parentheses are the percent
difference between frame story shears for that mesh size and the 1-foot mesh size. As
you can see, for this model, the story shears generally only varied by a fraction of a
percent between the finest mesh and the coarsest mesh. The size of the mesh used in
the analysis had very little impact on the distribution of the lateral forces; the analysis
was not sensitive to the mesh size. It is important to note that the rigid diaphragm
analysis didn’t compare well, with the frame story shears in error by over 50% in some
cases. This is a good indication that some structures should not be analyzed using the
rigid diaphragm assumption.

An important consideration is the impact of mesh size on the analysis time. For this
structure the analysis took 2 seconds for the model with the 15-foot mesh, but it took 5
minutes 41 seconds for the model with the 1-foot mesh. For larger, more complicated
structures it may be more practical to use a bit coarser mesh, to reduce the analysis
times. From this exercise, we can see that a small refined mesh isn’t necessary, and
that a reasonably large mesh gives acceptably accurate results with the benefit of
substantially faster analysis times.

In addition to the frame story force comparison discussed above, the results for several
other structural responses were similarly tabulated and compared. Space doesn’t allow
for an exhaustive presentation of those results here, but a few things are noteworthy.
The impact of mesh size on the diaphragm shear across the narrow segment of
diaphragm was considerably more pronounced: there was a 22% difference between
the value given with the 15-foot mesh and that given with the 1-foot mesh. That
difference dropped to 5% for the 8-foot mesh and was 1% for the 4-foot mesh. The story
drift at the most critical end of the structure also was impacted, but to a lesser extent:
there was a 6% difference between the value given with the 15-foot mesh and that
given with the 1-foot mesh. That difference dropped to 3% for the 8-foot mesh and was
2% for the 4-foot mesh.

For practical reasons I recommend specifying a larger mesh, say 4 ft or even 8 ft. The
accuracy is within a small few percent or even a fraction of a percent of a more refined
mesh, but the analysis times are dramatically shorter. You will work more productively.

You need to recognize that this is just one small example, and the study was certainly
not exhaustive. You should take advantage of the analytical tools that are now available
to you to create your own models and do your own studies. You need to decide for
yourself what you are comfortable with.